Format

Cataract: Paper presentations are 3 minutes; presentations should include 1 slide each for methods, results, and conclusions.

Retina: Paper presentations will be 5 minutes.

Ophthalmic pathology: Case presentations are also accepted for the Canadian Ophthalmic Pathology Society meeting. Submission of case presentations can be made by email to Dr. Valerie White. However, abstracts on research projects may be submitted through the online system for review by the Canadian Ophthalmic Pathology Society. Submission does not guarantee acceptance.

COS award

Excellence in Ophthalmic Research: for residents, fellows or medical students conducting original, innovative research at a Canadian university. You must apply for this award at time of abstract submission and be the primary author of this work.

Poster presentations: First place: $1000; Second place: $750; Third place: $500. Posters will be judged on the following criteria: communicability, scientific communication and scientific merit/value. Authors must be present at their posters when requested. Posters must be submitted electronically as a PDF in advance of the meeting.

Other awards

The Ron Jans Clinical Cornea Award: for residents, fellows or medical students conducting original, innovative clinical research at a Canadian university, in the areas of cornea, external disease or refractive surgery. You must apply for this award at the time of abstract submission, be the primary author of this work, and have contributed at least 50% of the development of this study.

Amount of award: $1000

Abstract guidelines

All primary (submitting) authors must be members of COS. Your 2015 membership dues must be paid. (Medical students are exempt.)
COS encourages submission of original, innovative work. Any work that has previously been published or is accepted for publication will not be accepted. However, you may submit previously presented work to the subspecialty meetings. Acceptance of previously presented work is at the discretion of the subspecialty chair.

Abstracts may be submitted only once.

You may submit a maximum of 2 abstracts as first author. There is no limit on number of abstracts as a co-author.

Abstracts must be submitted using the online abstract submission process. Abstracts will not be accepted by email or other methods.

The submitting author must be the presenter. The submitting author will automatically be the contact author and will be listed as the presenter.

All authors must be listed in the order they should appear on the abstract in print. Failure to properly order the authors will result in their being incorrectly listed when/if the abstract is published.

Abstracts should be written and submitted by physicians or allied health professionals. Abstracts written or submitted by industry personnel will not be accepted.

Abstracts must be maximum 400 words or 2950 characters in length.

All authors of an abstract must disclose any and all financial interests. The submitting authors must provide financial disclosure for all authors over the previous 2 years. See Financial Disclosure criteria for more details.

All necessary permissions must be obtained before submitting an abstract. COS assumes no responsibility for the publication of any submitted material.

You may choose your presentation format preference; however all accepted abstracts are assigned to a paper or poster presentation at the discretion of the reviewing committee. If your format choice is not granted, you may withdraw your abstract.

By submitting an abstract, you agree to present it at the meeting and pay any and all applicable fees.

The body of your abstract should include details under the 5 main headings: purpose, study design, methods, results and conclusions. Abstracts with work in progress results will not be accepted.

COS scientific program criteria

Ethical Approval: Studies should follow the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the research protocol should be reviewed and approved by an appropriate independent ethics committee or institutional review board.

No ethics review required:

Case studies

Basic science not involving animals

Literature reviews

Observational case series (no treatment)

Ethics review required:

Basic science involving animals

Chart reviews

Prospective/experimental

Any research involving patient treatment

Anything with identifiable patient information

Financial disclosure: COS is an accredited Continuing Professional Development provider of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. COS must disclose to the program audience any real or apparent financial interests over the previous 2 years relevant to the content of your presentation(s) in order to ensure balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor in all accredited educational activities. Declaration of financial interest is not intended to restrict your presentation but to inform the audience that this relationship exists.

All presenters at the meeting MUST disclose any significant financial interest or other relationship over the previous 2 years with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial product(s) and/or provider(s) of any commercial services. In case of uncertainty it is better to err on full disclosure.

Abstract review

Abstracts will be adjudicated according to the subspecialty session selected. Abstracts are reviewed by the COS Council on Continuing Professional Development. All abstracts are considered equally for selection, and the quality of the abstract is the single most important factor in the Committee’s decision.

Abstracts are chosen on the basis of originality, clinical relevance, comprehensiveness, solid scientific practice, ability to stimulate discussion and/or address an educational need. Abstracts that do not adhere to the abstract submission guidelines will not be accepted. See Rejection criteria for details.

Keys to a successful submission

Your abstract is more likely to be accepted if:

You have followed all the abstract guidelines; you have read and understood COS Scientific Program Criteria including the Rejection Criteria.

You have listed all co-authors, and declared all financial interests.

You have submitted your abstract to the appropriate subspecialty session.

You have included a short descriptive title and have avoided gratuitous statements and irrelevant information.

The body of your abstract includes study details under the headings: purpose, study design, methods, results and conclusions. Abstracts with “results pending” or “conclusions to be discussed” will not be accepted. Information about sample size, study duration, follow-up, techniques used, etc. has been included. See Rejection criteria.

Your abstract should be clear, concise and free of errors.

Rejection criteria

Abstracts are reviewed according to the submission guidelines and assigned a corresponding score. Abstracts receiving a score below the cutoff point will not be accepted.

Abstracts will be rejected if

There is lack of full financial disclosure or there is concern about an apparent conflict of interest regarding commercial relationships.

The abstract appears to be primarily commercial in nature or appears to have been prepared by an industry representative.

There are ethical concerns in the area of animal or human subject research.

The abstract concerns previously published material.

The abstract adds little to the body of knowledge, does not present new information that advances the field of ophthalmology, or is similar to abstracts submitted by the same authors.

The study was poorly designed or conducted; the sample size is insufficient; it contains no data; the methods used could not have led to results indicated; results do not support the conclusions, etc.

The abstract reports on a clinical trial that was not registered.

Presenting author

The submitting author must be present at the meeting to deliver the presentation. Failure to adhere to this requirement may result in ineligibility to submit an abstract in the following year.

If the submitting author is a medical student we require a senior author to be present and prepared to support the work of the presenting author.
If the submitting author is a resident or fellow, we strongly recommend that a senior author be present and prepared to support the work of the presenting author.

Abstract withdrawal

Notice of withdrawal must be received by March 2, 2015. Please send written notice of withdrawal to: